Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

DR PIYUSHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is not maintainable for High Court interference; the appropriate remedy is to approach the magistrate under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S./Section 156(3) CrPC, and the writ is dismissed.

Summary

Dr. Piyush filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the police to conduct a proper investigation in Crime No. 284 of 2026 under sections of the B.N.S. that correspond to IPC sections 420 and 120‑B. The Court examined the scope of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as explained in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 SCC 409, and its counterpart Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. It held that any grievance about the investigation must be raised before the concerned magistrate under these provisions, not before the High Court under Article 226. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as an inappropriate matter for the Court’s interference.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the police to conduct a proper investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC/Section 175(3) B.N.S.S.
  • Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Mandamus
  • Police investigation
  • Section 156(3) CrPC
  • Section 175(3) B.N.S.S.
  • Article 226
  • High Court jurisdiction
  • Criminal procedure

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22950 of 2026

Dr Piyush
                                                                      .....Petitioner(s)
                                         Versus

State Of U.P. And 8 Others
                                                                    .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)            : Abhishek    Narayan,              Chandrakant
                                       Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)            : G.A.

Court No. - 45
                  HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
                  HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the AGA for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :-

"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and

directing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to make proper investigation in Case Crime No.

284 of 2026, Under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of B.N.S. (Corresponding Sections 420,

120-B I .P.C.) , Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, dated 17.03.2026."

3. In Paragraph nos. 15 to 17 of its judgment in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Supreme Court has

observed as follows : -

"15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing

its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the

police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it

satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly,

and can monitor the same.

16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is

an independent power, and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to
                                                                                                   CRLP No. 22950 of 2026
                                                                        2


                                    further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8).

                                    Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police

                                    submits the final report, vide State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha (SCC : AIR para 19).

                                    17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers

                                    in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it

                                    includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper

                                    investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been

                                    done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly

                                    worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as

                                    are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation."

                                    4. The provisions in B.N.S.S., 2023 which corresponds to Section 156(3)

                                    of Cr.P.C. is Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. In case, the petitioner has any

                                    grievance against the manner in which the investigation is being

                                    conducted, the petitioner has the remedy to approach the concerned

                                    Magistrate under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. / Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

                                    5. It is not a case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the

                                    Constitution of India, at this stage.

                                    6. The writ petition is dismissed.



                                                                (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    September 30, 2026
                                    Rama Kant




Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.